Grant was exceptional at what he did; albeit with overwhelming resources and troops. What was outstanding about him, in my mind, is that this man's skill was equal to the pursuit of that task. He also, to a greater extent, was sensitive to the times in that he sought not to humiliate those he had defeated. But, perhaps most of all, his endurance, having cancer, to make his mark and money for those he left at his death, is perhaps, the greatest mark of his character.
Alcohol was endemic in that army, Grant probably did not drink much more then the rest, and much of these rumors were spread by his enemies. He didn’t drink when it mattered
I would love to visit. I live near his boyhood home and birthplace; both great places to see. His memoirs were fantastically written and a pleasure to read.
Points for keeping good humor with such frequent interruption. Understandably they were keeping to time restrictions, but still I'd love to hear a full interview. I'm looking forward to reading that book!
My fave guy...Grant looks pretty spiffy on the $50... He suffered major emotional upset in later years, remembering and reflecting on the carnage of the Civil War. Anyone who thinks he did it blithely and casually has rocks in their head and knows nothing of the man. He was indeed a binge drinker, true.Later in life he gained control of it, admirably..and, without the aid of The Betty Ford Center or AA...As far as smoking, that is hardly a character flaw. In those days cigar smoking was very common. Grant was not unique in that regard. BTW with all due respect, Gayle needs to fine tune her semantics: she clearly has never been to a Step meeting...Hmm
What an insufferable set of interviewers. I'm so glad that Charlie Rose at least has finally left the scene. Even before he got MeToo'ed into oblivion, I loathed his interviews, with his pompous style and constant interruptions of guests much smarter than he.
A bunch of insipid questions from the CBS personalities - I discerned a little frustration on Chernow's part as he tried to dispel some of the misconceptions embodied in their questions.
Just because a person ties one on occasionally doesn't necessarily make them an alcoholic or even a functioning alcoholic, that term is used far more than it should be....IMO
People today drink to soothe their pain. It’s the medication that you can get freely without a prescription or even fear of embarrassment. imagine what those soldiers and people had to deal with back then.
Read what else Grant wrote. I am reminded that Ike was deprecated by journalists because of his politics. But he wrote speeches for McArthur, and his wartime papers show him to be an excellent write. “Crusade in Europe” is competent albeit not in the class of Grant’s great work. Ike, of course, could not afford to be as candid as Grant, a dying man, because he still had to make his way in the world.
Lee was a brilliant general to do all that he did with what he had. Chernow says he didn't have a broad strategy unlike Grant. He did have a broad strategy. The same one North Vietnam used against the US. Make war so painful and wear down the Northern resolve to make war that they will sue for peace. And he almost did it. But he knew from day 1 that war was not winnable. Lee was a man of figures, and the sums didn't add up no matter how resolved the south was. He chose to fight for virginia, not the confederacy. He was a professional career soldier. Once he chose a side, he did his duty and followed his orders. I agree that Grant was a brilliant general, but let's not minimize Lee. The question no one asks: If lee had all the resources of Grant, how much different would the outcome be?
It's worth noting that Grant was given overall command of all the Union's Armies in the spring of 1864, so it was his job to have broad strategy. Lee was given overall command of the Confederacy's armies only in February of 1865, when the war was all but lost. Up until that point, he was only in command of the Army of Northern Virginia.
The south didn’t have to win, they had to just NOT lose. There was only one way for the south to win and it was that. He took too many risks and took too many casualties he couldn’t replace. An early war strategic reporter from Britain said in their paper how to win, the North would have to conquer and hold the equivalent of Russia in Europe. The south didn’t have to conquer the north, and were never going to. “If Lee had Grants resources...” but he didn’t. That’s the problem. Being tactically a good commander doesn’t make you a strategic genius. Look at the Revolution, Napoleons Russia campaign, etc where a small force could win against a large one. They had land to their advantage, they didn’t have manpower to waste on frontal assaults with no strategic benefits. Make it too costly for the other side. Not your own already numerically weaker force.
@@marquisdelafayette1929 True on a lot that you said. There were those that wanted Lee to fight a defensive war only, however Lee thought he had to have a quick win against the union to get England to side with the south who was supplying their textile mills with 90% of the cotton they used. He knew , long term that the south could never compete against the industrial might of the Union and he had to act while his army was the strongest. Thus the early strikes into Maryland and Pennsylvania. Lee was fighting against time because both Lincoln and Grant were never going to give in to an independent confederacy. Both were great generals in my opinion, all things considered. Speaking militarily only, of course.
@@fukc26 Allow me to help, alcoholism is a choice, cancer isn't. One is a choice, one is a disease you can't decide not to have one day. See the difference?
@@fukc26 over simplify? why not just say simplify, seems redundant, no? Add as much detail as you need to show my assertion to be wrong, or over-simply admit I am right
Chernow is such a terrific biographer. In many ways he is the genesis of the current moment of early American history fervor. I hope he keeps writing.
Great book. Really came to love US Grant. Full of really compelling sub-stories.
Grant was exceptional at what he did; albeit with overwhelming resources and troops. What was outstanding about him, in my mind, is that this man's skill was equal to the pursuit of that task. He also, to a greater extent, was sensitive to the times in that he sought not to humiliate those he had defeated. But, perhaps most of all, his endurance, having cancer, to make his mark and money for those he left at his death, is perhaps, the greatest mark of his character.
Grant may yet receive the credit and admiration that he so richly deserves.
One of the best biographies ive read. Chernow is one of the best at his craft.
Great biography, sheds considerable light on Grant and his times.
Alcohol was endemic in that army, Grant probably did not drink much more then the rest, and much of these rumors were spread by his enemies. He didn’t drink when it mattered
Exactly
Just finished the book...excellent.
I went to where Grant wrote memoirs. It's only an hour and a half away.
My Chemical Republican - I love your username!
From where?
@@mitchellhughes5180 Plattsburgh
I would love to visit. I live near his boyhood home and birthplace; both great places to see. His memoirs were fantastically written and a pleasure to read.
Gayle got taught a vocab lesson
fleischer236 absolutely schooled
Points for keeping good humor with such frequent interruption. Understandably they were keeping to time restrictions, but still I'd love to hear a full interview. I'm looking forward to reading that book!
My fave guy...Grant looks pretty spiffy on the $50... He suffered major emotional upset in later years, remembering and reflecting on the carnage of the Civil War. Anyone who thinks he did it blithely and casually has rocks in their head and knows nothing of the man. He was indeed a binge drinker, true.Later in life he gained control of it, admirably..and, without the aid of The Betty Ford Center or AA...As far as smoking, that is hardly a character flaw. In those days cigar smoking was very common. Grant was not unique in that regard. BTW with all due respect, Gayle needs to fine tune her semantics: she clearly has never been to a Step meeting...Hmm
What an insufferable set of interviewers. I'm so glad that Charlie Rose at least has finally left the scene. Even before he got MeToo'ed into oblivion, I loathed his interviews, with his pompous style and constant interruptions of guests much smarter than he.
Gayle is the worst
I agree! Let the man speak!
A bunch of insipid questions from the CBS personalities - I discerned a little frustration on Chernow's part as he tried to dispel some of the misconceptions embodied in their questions.
That was the exact word that came to mind
Grant was a strategic genius with a lot of common sense.
Leave it to CBS, to take a dump on General Grant.
Just because a person ties one on occasionally doesn't necessarily make them an alcoholic or even a functioning alcoholic, that term is used far more than it should be....IMO
Very good biography! The three interviewers are absolute bafoons.
buffoons?
No discussion of the Public Credit Act of 1869 which ended bimetallism. In 1879, silver was no longer a money but merely an industrial metal.
Amazing how much cbs morning news has fallen in quality in a few years.
Looking forward to picking up a copy at a swap meet or thrift store. $28 is too rich for my fixed income blood.
It's a superb book. At over 900 pages, you're getting your money's worth. But if it doesn't show up at a thrift store, buy a used copy on line.
Costco has it for about $14.00
$1.99 for the kindle version on Amazon
People today drink to soothe their pain. It’s the medication that you can get freely without a prescription or even fear of embarrassment. imagine what those soldiers and people had to deal with back then.
He was a great writer because there was no such thing as Whole Language in those days.
Read what else Grant wrote. I am reminded that Ike was deprecated by journalists because of his politics. But he wrote speeches for McArthur, and his wartime papers show him to be an excellent write. “Crusade in Europe” is competent albeit not in the class of Grant’s great work. Ike, of course, could not afford to be as candid as Grant, a dying man, because he still had to make his way in the world.
Don't dishonor Grants memory with a ridiculous camp musical....
Lee was a brilliant general to do all that he did with what he had. Chernow says he didn't have a broad strategy unlike Grant. He did have a broad strategy. The same one North Vietnam used against the US. Make war so painful and wear down the Northern resolve to make war that they will sue for peace. And he almost did it. But he knew from day 1 that war was not winnable. Lee was a man of figures, and the sums didn't add up no matter how resolved the south was. He chose to fight for virginia, not the confederacy. He was a professional career soldier. Once he chose a side, he did his duty and followed his orders. I agree that Grant was a brilliant general, but let's not minimize Lee. The question no one asks: If lee had all the resources of Grant, how much different would the outcome be?
It's worth noting that Grant was given overall command of all the Union's Armies in the spring of 1864, so it was his job to have broad strategy. Lee was given overall command of the Confederacy's armies only in February of 1865, when the war was all but lost. Up until that point, he was only in command of the Army of Northern Virginia.
The south didn’t have to win, they had to just NOT lose. There was only one way for the south to win and it was that. He took too many risks and took too many casualties he couldn’t replace. An early war strategic reporter from Britain said in their paper how to win, the North would have to conquer and hold the equivalent of Russia in Europe. The south didn’t have to conquer the north, and were never going to. “If Lee had Grants resources...” but he didn’t. That’s the problem. Being tactically a good commander doesn’t make you a strategic genius. Look at the Revolution, Napoleons Russia campaign, etc where a small force could win against a large one. They had land to their advantage, they didn’t have manpower to waste on frontal assaults with no strategic benefits. Make it too costly for the other side. Not your own already numerically weaker force.
@@marquisdelafayette1929 True on a lot that you said. There were those that wanted Lee to fight a defensive war only, however Lee thought he had to have a quick win against the union to get England to side with the south who was supplying their textile mills with 90% of the cotton they used. He knew , long term that the south could never compete against the industrial might of the Union and he had to act while his army was the strongest. Thus the early strikes into Maryland and Pennsylvania. Lee was fighting against time because both Lincoln and Grant were never going to give in to an independent confederacy. Both were great generals in my opinion, all things considered. Speaking militarily only, of course.
Lee didn’t make the list of Top 10 Generals of All Time. By military strategists. Not US. Of the world. One American made the list, US Grant.
Interesting interview except for the disease of alcoholism; no such thing.
Kevin Phillips oh? Explain
Alcoholism is a disease. My father, grandfather and great-grandfather was an alcoholic. Explain that?
@@fukc26 Allow me to help, alcoholism is a choice, cancer isn't. One is a choice, one is a disease you can't decide not to have one day. See the difference?
mollkatless you’re oversimplifying it but sure
@@fukc26 over simplify? why not just say simplify, seems redundant, no?
Add as much detail as you need to show my assertion to be wrong, or over-simply admit I am right
Can’t stand CBS
1986.Owner of the Ulysses S. Grant Pension Fund Jamie Neil Parker escrow 32717 32718 32719.